This Just In!

[spen666]

I understand the reasons for his identity being currently kept hidden, so I agree that, for now, he needn’t be identified.

Assuming that the matter is investigated by the police, the suspect’s identity can be revealed once he is either arrested or charged.

I’m concerned by the BBC carrying on an investigation, since May, into what appears to be a crime instead of passing the entire thing over to the police immediately.

I am interested by why the family did not make a complaint to the police. What were they expecting to achieve by only going to the BBC when it appears on the face of it their allegation is of a crime by the presenter. It is not clear at present what the BBC have to do with the allegation, (other than employing the presenter)

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Mudsticks brought up the issue of the law not me talking about people being acquitted on technicalities.

She didn’t.

i am merely responding to her claim that even if not guilty people are guilt.

I haven’t seen that claim, can you quote it?

 

[spen666]

Ah great thanks @glasgowcyclist
Now it's been said in a properly 'manly' voice the message has got through..😉

And the point now been quietly dropped

Pornographication of bodies.
Abdication of duty around teaching 'true' (not assumed) consent.

Coercion, power, control, and healthy versus unhealthy sexual and other relationships.

And the 'normalising' of all kinds of porn and objectification, are not just some dry legal subject, as some would seem to prefer.


If you're bringing up, or having regular contact with youngsters in this age of porn being 'freely' available everywhere, then it's a much bigger, and more complicated conversation to be had..

If you are referring to me, nothing of the sort is true. You seem to have avoided explaining why you :
a) think being not guilty of a crime is a technicality
b) Why you think Article 6 of the ECHR can be ignored
c) Why you think you have the right to tell people on here they cannot talk about the law?
Are you in favoutr of abolishing all human rights, or just those of people you do not like? The great thing about Human Rights is they apply to everyone, including TV presenters

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I am interested by why the family did not make a complaint to the police. What were they expecting to achieve by only going to the BBC when it appears on the face of it their allegation is of a crime by the presenter. It is not clear at present what the BBC have to do with the allegation, (other than employing the presenter)

The only thing that immediately springs to mind is that the parent might not realise that the alleged behaviour amounted to a crime.

 

[spen666]

She didn’t.



I haven’t seen that claim, can you quote it?

You may want to ask a grown up to help you read.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You may want to ask a grown up to help you read.

Or you could show me where I’m wrong or have missed something, instead of the petty insult. I have no problem conceding where I have been mistaken.

 

[Bromptonaut]

You may want to ask a grown up to help you read.

As is often the case with @spen666 he's presenting the issue in legal binary. He's quite right that in law you're either guilty or acquitted. Or maybe no crime is committed so no charge is laid.

However, getting off on a technicality is a well known bit of layman's language and one I've heard used off the bench various Judges including one who was in the Supreme Court.

@mudsticks used the word technicalities in posts 77 and 80.

 

[mudsticks]

If you are referring to me, nothing of the sort is true. You seem to have avoided explaining why you :
a) think being not guilty of a crime is a technicality
b) Why you think Article 6 of the ECHR can be ignored
c) Why you think you have the right to tell people on here they cannot talk about the law?
Are you in favoutr of abolishing all human rights, or just those of people you do not like? The great thing about Human Rights is they apply to everyone, including TV presenters

If you bothered to read my post properly you would see that I was talking about not trying to make out that if this activity was legal then it would in some way make it ok, or a bit less awful.

The rest of your post about human rights is just irrelevant noise, nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

As is often the case with @spen666 he's presenting the issue in legal binary

As is often the case, Spen has misunderstood the post he is railing against.

However, getting off on a technicality is a well known bit of layman's language

It is indeed, but it hasn’t been used in the posts he’s arguing about.

 

[monkers]

I am interested by why the family did not make a complaint to the police. What were they expecting to achieve by only going to the BBC when it appears on the face of it their allegation is of a crime by the presenter. It is not clear at present what the BBC have to do with the allegation, (other than employing the presenter)

I'm no Tom Sawyer (see what I did there?) and I have no new information to bring. I'm interested in the same thing as you. Maybe you can advise, but my reading of the mother's point of view is that the life of this young man is ruined because these large sums of money had facilitated a good deal of drug purchase and use. Is it not the case that there exists the possibility that the presenter might not have faced charges, but that the son could have on the basis of the mother's evidence? Could it be that the presenter could face charges if there is sufficient evidence to show that he knew the money he provided was being used for this purpose?

 

[Cirrus]

And Mudsticks has made it clear to you she is not debating this on the basis of legality but the social or moral acceptability of such behaviour.

Morality police, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[monkers]

Morality police, what could possibly go wrong.

Fair point, but parliament does sometimes respond to public outrage with new legislation - Abu Hamza, upskirting etc.

 

[Ian H]

I am interested by why the family did not make a complaint to the police. What were they expecting to achieve by only going to the BBC when it appears on the face of it their allegation is of a crime by the presenter. It is not clear at present what the BBC have to do with the allegation, (other than employing the presenter)

Do you think it unknown for employees to be sanctioned or even dismissed for behaviour that is not actually criminal, but contravenes company rules or brings their employer into disrepute?

 

[mudsticks]

Morality police, what could possibly go wrong.

The fact that we don't speak nearly enough in a grown up way about sex, sexual relationships, consent, power imbalances and so forth is the cause of a great deal of harm to human beings.
Especially to younger humans

Talking about that lack of decent discussion might seem like "Morality Police" to you .

But because we don't , we end up with violent pornography, and the likes of Andrew Tate, and his corrosive attitudes, having a place in the minds of young (and some older) people.

As it is many many people suffer real and lasting damage, as a result of their not being clear understanding of what is a healthy relationship with one's own body, and what constitutes a healthy relationship with other people's bodies.

Having raised young boys to men, and having existed as a person in a woman's body, this isn't some idle (or even solely legalese) topic to me.

 

[monkers]

The fact that we don't speak nearly enough in a grown up way about sex, sexual relationships, consent, power imbalances and so forth is the cause of a great deal of harm to human beings.
Especially to younger humans

Talking about that lack of decent discussion might seem like "Morality Police" to you .

But because we don't , we end up with violent pornography, and the likes of Andrew Tate, and his corrosive attitudes, having a place in the minds of young (and some older) people.

As it is many many people suffer real and lasting damage, as a result of their not being clear understanding of what is a healthy relationship with one's own body, and what constitutes a healthy relationship with other people's bodies.

Having raised young boys to men, and having existed as a person in a woman's body, this isn't some idle (or even solely legalese) topic to me.

Deserves its own thread.